Turkey’s image and the Armenian question
Monday, July 20, 2009
OSMAN BENGÃ=9CR
President Obama’s recent visit to Turkey underscores the growing
importance that the United States places on Turkish cooperation as it
seeks to address a profound set of problems in the region such as
withdrawal from Iraq without enabling a new round of sectarian
violence, support of Afghanistan and Pakistan in the fight against
al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and the containment of Iran’s growing
nuclear ambitions. For these and other reasons, the relationship
between Turkey and the U.S. has never been more important.
Turkey’s strategic value to the U.S. is undeniable. Turkey’s
geographic position, its young population and, until the recent global
slowdown, its dynamic economy make it well positioned to become an
increasingly influential player in political, economic and security
affairs in Europe and the Middle East political affairs. Yet as the
U.S. focuses increasing attention on its relations with Turkey, the
long shadow cast by the `Armenian question’ could foil both
countries’ desire to work more closely together and hinder Turkey’s
larger ambitions.
The efforts of the Armenian diaspora and support from key politicians
in the U.S. and Europe will ensure that the issue will not go away
anytime soon. The lack of closure has put Turkey on the defensive and
continues to damage Turkey’s image in the world. More importantly, it
casts a poor light on the positive progress being made in today’s
Turkey and puts Turkey’s real friends in a difficult position. And,
for those with a narrow agenda, it negatively impacts Turkey’s
importance as a partner and ally of the U.S. and its ability to
address other shared issues of concern including the fight against
terrorism, transportation of energy from the Caspian, the preservation
of Iraq’s territorial integrity, and the containment of Iran’s nuclear
ambitions.
To date, Turkey has been mostly successful in its efforts to fight
genocide resolutions. So, why should Turkey care about finding a
satisfactory solution to the `Armenian question’?
President Obama’s recent visit to Turkey and his subsequent
non-mention of the `G’ word when he addressed the Armenian community
in his `Remembrance Day’ message could be interpreted as justifying
Turkey’s long standing strategy to fight genocide resolutions with
threats that such resolutions will damage relations with the U.S. But
Turks should not be so confident. If President Obama pulled his
punches in his Ankara address in order to show respect for and his
desire to coopera te with Turkey, he may not in the future. Yet
another resolution has been introduced in the U.S. Congress to
recognize the `Armenian Genocide’ but because of the enormity of
other issues confronting Congress at this time and the desire not to
add to the Obama administration’s foreign policy headaches, it doesn’t
appear likely that the resolution will get much traction even from
sympathetic members of Congress. The dual challenges of a global
economic recession and foreign policy challenges in the Middle East
buttresses the argument that the timing for such a resolution could
not be worse. Nevertheless, both Armenian and Turkish lobbyists will
wage yet another battle to press their respective positions.
By some accounts, approximately 70 percent of the Turkish Embassy’s
time in Washington is spent trying to persuade leading Americans to
support the Turkish position on the Armenian question. So far those
lobbying efforts have been successful, but sooner or later, a time may
come when the word `genocide’ will be used officially regardless of
how the Turks feel.
Many friends of Turkey are frustrated with Turkey’s intransigence on
the Armenian issue, which they view as self-defeating for Turkey’s
aspirations. And Turks need to confront the reality that their success
in defeating genocide resolutions is not necessarily because of the
historical validity of their argument. The uncomfortable truth is that
while `friends of Turkey’ may have sympa thy for Turkey and its
arguments that the events of 1915 were not genocide and that Muslims
suffered too, they believe that Turkey should acknowledge that it was
a terrible policy and express more empathy for the fact that hundreds
of thousands of Armenians died as a result of the Ottoman government
policy to deport Armenians.
One solution to the question of whether the events should be
characterized as genocide may come from Prime Minister Erdogan’s
proposal to establish a commission to examine the historical
record. Such a commission’s findings may prove conclusive if evidence
is discovered in Turkish and Armenian archives to support one position
or the other. As new archival information is examined, Turkey may well
find justification for its position that the massacres were a tragic
consequence of war and not a deliberate policy.
But it is also possible that no amount of historical research will
satisfy either the Turkish or Armenian communities.
Regardless of whether the massacres can be characterized as genocide,
it is ironic that the modern Republic of Turkey, founded by Atatürk,
would want to defend the actions of a dysfunctional and disastrous
Ottoman government that Atatürk eventually opposed.
In his excellent history of the Middle East during the period
surrounding World War I, `A Peace to End All Peace,’ author David
Fromkin writes how Atatürk, in open rebellion to the Sultan who was
still titular head of what remained of Ottoman Turkey, sought to
separate himself from the policies of the disgraced Ottoman leaders in
establishing the new Turkish Republic. Moreover, Atatürk was a bitter
enemy of Enver, a leader of the ruling Committee of Union and
Progress, or CUP, and one of the architects of policy to expel the
Armenian population from eastern Turkey. Fromkin documents how Enver
sought to undermine Atatürk’s efforts to form a new nation out of
the ruins of the war.
Turkey can justifiably condemn the policies and actions of previous
governments while still asserting pride in its history. In announcing
the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and in renouncing
the use of torture techniques, President Obama has acknowledged to the
world that the U.S. has made mistakes. He did so in order to promote
broader U.S. policy objectives in the Middle East while strongly
promoting the best of America: the values of freedom and democracy
that have made America a great nation.
For Turkey to realize its ambition as a regional power, and if indeed
it values democratic ideals, it is time for it to take steps, as
President Obama said, to confront its own history. As President Obama
said in his speech at Cairo University where he spoke about a new
beginning in relations between the U.S. and the Muslim world: `It is
easier to blame others than to look inward. =80¦ We should choose the
right path, not just the easy path.’ As a maturing democracy, the
time is right for Turkey to take the `right path’ to break the
impasse on the Armenian question by making several `grand gestures.’
This is how:
To announce that it is suspending all its paid lobbying activities
with respect to congressional resolutions and instead, that it will
dedicate that money to support the work of a historical commission to
examine what happened. To ensure its independence from the Turkish
government,20the commission would be composed of leading international
historians, including Armenian historians. Turkey would open its
archives and Armenians should be asked to do the same.
Turkey should also form a commission to acknowledge the 100th
anniversary of the 1915 deportations and massacres. This could include
historical symposia and a commemoration of a memorial to Armenians and
Muslims who died.
A genocide resolution may still occupy some in Congress, but Turkey’s
actions could defuse its impact. The Turkish government should proceed
with the commission regardless of the status of a congressional
genocide resolution or Armenian acceptance of the commission. And, if
such a resolution should pass, Turkey should allow the commission’s
work to continue and forbear taking any action that might harm its
relations with the U.S.
It is important that Turkey not only allows but also promotes open and
honest debate on the events of 1915 and the attitudes that allowed
such a thing to happen. This open debate and self-searching wou ld
have a far-reaching impact on Turkey.
First, it would confirm that Turkey has reached the point in its
evolution as a democratic state to openly examine its past.
It would earn Turkey enormous goodwill that would advance Turkey’s
goals of EU membership and of playing a more prominent role in
regional affairs.
It would not force groups that are otherwise supportive of Turkey to
take sides against Turkey on this issue.
It would serve to strengthen U.S.-Turkish ties at this critical moment
when the need for cooperation between the two countries is paramount.
And finally, it would be an important step toward reconciliation and
healing for both Turks and Armenians.
(Osman Bengür, a Turkish-American former candidate for the U.S.
Congress, is a businessman/investment banker based in Washington,
D.C., and a columnist for This piece was first
published by in Turkish Policy Quarterly, Volume 8, No: 1, Spring
2009.)
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
